You are here: / / IN A “SMOOTH, SLIPPERY, SHINY FLOOR” SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE...
,

IN A “SMOOTH, SLIPPERY, SHINY FLOOR” SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE FACT THAT THE FLOOR WAS WAXED DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE NEGLIGENCE; THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE THE WAX WAS NEGLIGENTLY APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this “smooth, slippery, shiny floor” slip and fall case. The fact that a floor has been polished does not establish negligence. Plaintiff must show the wax or polish was negligently applied:

“A defendant may not be held liable for the application of wax, polish, or paint to a floor . . . unless the defendant had actual, constructive, or imputed knowledge that the product could render the floor dangerously slippery” … . “A prima facie case of the negligent application of wax may be established by evidence that a dangerous residue of wax was present on the floor” … . “In the absence of evidence of a negligent application of floor wax or polish, the mere fact that a smooth floor may be shiny or slippery does not support a cause of action to recover damages for negligence, nor does it give rise to an inference of negligence” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that there was no negligent application of wax to the floor … . Brener v Queens Blvd. Extended Care Facility Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 02240, Second Dept 9-15-26 

Practice Point: A smooth, slippery, shiny floor is not actionable in a slip and fall case unless there is evidence wax was negligently applied.

 

You might also like
No Allegation Plaintiffs’ “Physical Safety” Was Endangered Re: Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress/No Allegation of Sufficiently Extreme and Outrageous Conduct Re: Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress—Those Causes of Action Were Therefore Properly Dismissed
ALLOWING THE APPLICANT FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO RETURN WITH A SIGNAGE PROPOSAL AFTER THE PLAN WAS APPROVED DID NOT CONSTITUTE (IMPERMISSIBLE) SEGMENTATION UNDER SEQRA (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “ONE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact About Whether Order Given by Private Attending Physician and Carried Out by Hospital Employee Was Contraindicated—Therefore Hospital’s Motion to Dismiss Properly Denied
FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN POST-COLONOSCOPY INSTRUCTIONS AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF A COLON PERFORATION CONSTITUTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED IN 2009 WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED, IT WAS NEVER ABANDONED PURSANT TO CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS NOT TRIGGERED AND THE MOTION TO RESTORE THE 2009 ACTION TO THE CALENDAR IN 2018, AFTER THE SECOND (2015) FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
Neither Plaintiff Nor Intervenor Bank Had Standing to Determine Validity of Mortgage

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF FATHER WAS AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD IN AN ORDER THAT DIRECTED... THE RENTAL-CAR DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE...